Territoriality and Territorial Governance

as a practical application of indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination1.

By Claus Kjaerby

Contents
Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2
Territorial Governance of the Harakmbut people ............................................... 3
History and configuration of the Harakmbut territory ...................................................... 3
Involvement in the Harakmbut process .......................................................................... 6
Territorial governance of the Rama people....................................................... 11
History and configuration of the Rama territory ............................................................ 11
Involvement in the Rama process ................................................................................ 16
Alternative political options to the right to self-determination ....................... 26
Territorial governance and the right to self-determination.............................. 30
Methological experiences and final reflections ................................................ 37

SUMMARY
In view of the right to self-determination recognised in the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), the present article
shows and systematises various initiatives from different indigenous peoples in
Latin America given the need to defend their threatened territorial resources and
establish a self-government system in their traditional territories.

It should be made clear that over the period of negotiation of the Declaration
between the indigenous movement and the States lasting 25 years, indigenous
peoples had been developing new autonomy and self-government models in each
of their national political and legal contexts. When United Nations finally adopted
the Declaration in General Assembly - September 2007, practical experiences of
self-government and the exercise of autonomy deriving from the right to self-self-
determination had already been explored, which is logical, as the Declaration is
merely an updating of indigenous peoples’ claims to legitimise their practices,
which they have exercised over the span of many generations. That is why they
fought for the Declaration.

1
Published without the Harakmbut case in :“The Rights of the Indigenous Peoples to the Natural Resources and Territory –
Conflicts and Challenges in Latin America”, Claus Kjaerby, Aparicio, M. (ed.), Icaria Editorial, Barcelona, 2011

1
The text proposes the conceptualisation of these self-government strategies of
indigenous peoples as Territorial Governance: a maximum political expression
within reach of the right to self-self-determination. The concept, both flexible and
sensible to the context of each people-territory, was structured on the basis of
experiences gathered in accompanying some of these peoples in Latin America.

Summing up, Territorial Governance serves as a framework for understanding how

indigenous peoples’ are governing themselves in their territories despite the fact
that their ancestral governance models were dismantled through the rupture of
their territoriality, as an outcome of a conscious and secular strategy – applied by
colonisers, institutions of post-colonial states and political/economic actors
currently in power – with a view to continue to exploit the territorial resources of
indigenous peoples without discrimination.

The text suggest a slight hope that territorial governance is revitalised within the
framework of new international collective rights via their traditional institutions
rather than through ancestral structures - often inoperative in the aftermath of
historical processes endured in the past.

The article is not the output of a planned investigation on the right to self-self-
determination but rather a systematisation of diverse practical experiences related
to the theme, entailing the discovery of a correlation between these indigenous
peoples’ collective rights and territorial governance.

INTRODUCTION
The present article is not the output of a programmed scientific investigation but
rather a compilation of concrete experiences in working with a diversity of
indigenous peoples in Latin America over a period of 13 years. It also shows a
work theory around the indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination in practice.
The first pieces of the theory were established as a result of the systematisation of
a number of empirical processes with peoples-territories, whose modern
government models seemed to respond to somewhat similar needs, further
coinciding with the experiences and observations of my colleague Pedro García
Hierro, who had participated in many other processes with a variety of indigenous
peoples in the Amazon. Both the theory and the work methodology known as
Territorial Governance were developed when both of us began to work on the
basis of this shared concept, trying to make Territorial Governance a flexible and
adequate concept, faithful to what the peoples were actually exercising in their
territories and one that could establish some patterns at the time of concretising
practical forms in the application of their self-determination.

In other words, in hindsight, construction of the logic shifted from a process of

systematisation of a relatively large number of cases -showing similarities when
compared- to a second phase of validation before the critical eyes of other

2
indigenous peoples where this interpretation of self-determination was consciously
and transparently applied.

Personally, I accumulated my initial experiences as I accompanied the Harakmbut,

Yine, Matsiguenga, Kandozi and Achuar peoples from the Peruvian Amazon and
the Andean Taquileños. On the other hand, the most conscious applications and
the validation process of the theoretical and methodological model were developed
in Central America as adviser to the Intercultural Governance Thematic
Programme, working with approximately 10 indigenous peoples as counterparts.
Here, the experiences come mainly from the Rama, Mayangna and Miskitu
Peoples from the Caribbean Coast together with the Afro descendant Kriol in
Nicaragua, although there have been intensive exchanges with the Chorotega from
the Centre-north area of this country; the Maya Ch’orti’, Mam and K’iché’ from
Guatemala, and the Lenca, and Tolpa in Honduras.

It is worthwhile underscoring that Pedro García has developed a similar validation

process with diverse indigenous peoples in Peru, Venezuela, Colombia and
Bolivia.

Due to space limitations, reference is made in this text mainly to experiences

accumulated in the most intensive work processes, lasting up to six years in each
case. It is about two pluricultural territories thus configured as a result of historical
processes. These are: the Harakmbut Territory in the Amazon department Madre
de Dios and the Rama Territory in the Nicaraguan Caribbean coast, living mainly in
the area known as the South Atlantic Autonomic Region (RAAS). Further on,
reference will only be made to other processes and peoples-territories when an
illustration so requires.

The special attention drawn throughout the text to the re-configuration of ancestral
territories into their present territories seeks to underscore the importance of
understanding the territory as such, and its links with territorial governance, which
will be presented in the last chapter.

TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE OF THE HARAKMBUT PEOPLE

History and configuration of the Harakmbut territory2
The Harakmbut people, with an assumed population of tenths of thousands of
individuals, coexisted ancestrally organised in 6 linguistic and culturally
differentiated smaller groups; Arakmbut or Amarakaeri, Toyoeri, Wachipaeri,
Arasaeire, Sapiteri and Kisambaeri. The base unit of each group consisted of
extensive families or clans distributed along the shores of the tributaries of River

2
Aside from personal experiences accumulated with the Harakmbut people-territory between 1997 and 2004, I take
advantage of some work experiences and the proximity of Andrew Gray, who lived in the community of San José de Karene
of the Arakmbut subgroup, in the period 1979-1982, to subsequently divulge his experiences on Trilogy “Los Arakmbut” in
2006.

3
Alto Madre de Dios (E’ori). This river demarcated their ancestral territory
geographically and was the venue of hostile encounters with neighbours.
Early in the past century, the rubber boom affected a large part of indigenous
peoples from the Amazon, implying slavery and outbreaks that considerably
reduced the Harakmbut population and caused the mobilisation of some clans to
the head waters. In the Fifties, Dominican Missionary José Álvarez established
contact with this population, this being for most of them their first contact with the
western world. Encouraged by the promise of working tools, clothing and
healthcare, they agreed to transfer to a Catholic mission stations known to date as
Shintuya, and the ancestral territory was thus practically abandoned.

Between 1969 and 1973, after years of spiritual suffering and internal conflict
caused by overcrowding and the mixing of well differentiated subgroups, in addition
to enduring hunger - as a result of overexploitation of natural resources in a
reduced productive area - and suffering from new diseases, the majority decided to
escape and relocate in their ancestral territory. They nevertheless reorganised in
multi-family settlements, where hundreds of people gathered around the nucleus of
their ancestral territory, as they had gotten used to sharing activities with the
members of other families. On the other side, the Native Communities Law passed
in 1978, allowing for the titling of commune property and granting communities (not
entire territories) the exclusive right to the usufruct of natural resources. Exercising
this right required a certain concentration of “native” population within a productive
territorial space that, in the opinion of national authorities, would be capable of
sustaining the life of its population. At that time, the Harakmbut were only 2000
people.

With support from Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana

(AIDESEP) [Interethnic Association for Development of Peruvian Rainforest] and
Federación Nativa del Río Madre de Dios y Afluentes (FENAMAD) [Native
Federation of River Madre de Dios and Tributaries], six Harakmbut communities
were granted titles as of 1985. However, the population soon became aware that it
was difficult to recover the life style they wanted on the fragmented collective
space recognized in the land titles. For some Harakmbut communities, subsistence
activities included (and continue to include) small scale alluvial gold mining, such
as they had practiced since the times of the Inca empire, swapping gold for
Andean products.

In the Nineties, the Harakmbut survived in native communities that were only
fractioned segments of their ancestral territory, which nucleus had been
abandoned and left out of control and despite its high socio-economic and cultural
value. Given its common importance to all communities, none could assume an
exclusive right thereof and include it in their own community title. Its importance
lies mainly on its role as a space for fauna and flora regeneration. To Harakmbut
people, these natural elements are not only important economic resources but also
significant subjects in their mythological vision, clearly establishing that the mythic
and sacred Wanamei tree gave birth to and saved all its population and where
humans (the Harakmbut) and animals are not clearly differentiated.
4
Inadequate territorial fragmentation equally affected other peoples, such as the
Yine and Matsiguenga, who had found refuge in spaces near the Harakmbut
territory, as in the case of the communities of Shipetiare and Diamante.

In the Nineties, as a consequence of the legal and political impediments hindering

reconstruction and titling of comprehensive territories emerged in AIDESEP the
idea to establish the so called Communal Reserves3, a special category of
protected areas acknowledging the traditional nature of relationships with a certain
indigenous people or peoples and allowing this population to make direct use of
these reserves and providing their direct involvement in their administration.
However, neither the specific administration model nor the distribution of functions
and obligations between so called “beneficiary river bench population” and the
State had been determined in the absence of regulations on the Protected Natural
Areas Law.

In 1997, the recognition of the nucleus of the traditional Harakmbut territory as the
Amarakaeri Communal Reserve (RCA) initiated before the General Directorate of
Protected Natural Areas (DGANP) of
the Instituto Nacional de Recursos
Naturales (INRENA) [National
Institute of Natural Resources] under
the Ministry of Agriculture sought.

This territorial space was threatened

for various reasons: the State had
granted the Hunt Oil company an oil
lease on the nucleus; miners from
the Andean region increasingly
expanded their industrial-scale
activities in the southeast;
lumbermen and settlers invaded the
territory from the north, and public
authorities had plans to build a
highway that would cut across the
whole territory in support of all other
above-mentioned initiatives.

3
This regime initially emerged within the Wild Fauna and Flora Forest Law (DL 21147- 1975) but it was only recently in its
Regulations for the Conservation of Wild Flora and Fauna (DS 158-77-AG/1977), article 121º and subsequent articles, that
this figure was developed. It was about a regime for the preservation of areas in State-owned self-lands for use and access
to fauna and flora resources by communities or other rural populations established in the proximity of these areas divided as
Commune Reserve. The Commune Reserve was not conceived by the State as a complement to indigenous territoriality but
simply as an area where the possibility of making traditional (not excluding) use of determined flora and fauna resources was
maintained. But it was not actually used by the indigenous movement until it became a category within the National System
of Protected Natural Areas. For a comprehensive treatment of this concept and process, see: Las Reservas Comunales y el
Territorio de Los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003, [Commune Reserves and Indigenous Peoples Territory, 2003].
AIDESEP/ODECOFROC/Racimos de Ungurahui, Pedro García and Claus Kjaerby.

5
In general assembly of the same year, FENAMAD, with assistance from Consejo
Harakmbut, Yine, Matsiguenga (COHARYIMA), agglutinating the communities of
all three ethnic groups in Alto Madre de Dios, decided to request accompaniment
from NGO “Working Group - Racimos de Ungurahui”. The communities adjacent to
the Harakmbut traditional territory had two requests: 1) Strategic counseling to
accelerate recognition of the nucleus of their traditional territory as a Communal
Reserve -considering that a collective title of their complete territory was not
feasible given the legal context and political situation- and through this route obtain
its protection prior to its environmental liquidation; 2) Support to improve their
economic situation through development initiatives compatible with the use of the
Reserve, as they considered that the natural resources under their control within
titled communities were insufficient to sustain life and their intended development
level. It is at this time that my relationship with the Harakmbut, Yine and
Matsiguenga process begins, as an Ibis adviser within the “Racimos de
Ungurahui”. Working Group

Involvement in the Harakmbut process

With a clear collective conscience with respect to environmental threats and
economic needs shared by all community residents related to the traditional
territory of the Harakmbut, it was agreed to establish an organisational structure
representing all seven Harakmbut, Yine and Matsiguenga communities adjacent to
Amarakaeri Communal Reserve4. As a corollary, the so called “Comité Pro-
reconocimiento y Gestión de la Reserva Comunal Amarakaeri” [Committee for
Recognition and Management of the Communal Amarakaeri Reserve”] (The
Committee) was integrated with two authorities from each community, who
conducted the process in coordination with FENAMAD and COHARYIMA.

Towards state recognition of the Communal Reserve, their strategy was to

demonstrate the communities’ capacity to develop their own sustainable economic
activities as an alternative to large scale mining and lumber/oil activities, based on
their territorial and cultural resources, considerably benefitting the State as well.

To this effect, a number of workshops were implemented in order to share different

visions for future management and administration of the territory and its natural
resources and to analyse possible economic alternatives within Amarakaeri
Commune Reserve (RCA), capable of ensuring the sustainable conservation of
said area. Following assessment of the interests, the legal framework, capacities
and positive/negative impacts foreseen in each scenario, delegates and presidents
of the communities chose a strategy that included ecotourism as the central line of
work, and began to plan activities within their traditional territory based on the
contents of Convention 169, ratified by Peru.

4
Other dispersed Harakmbut groups relocated around Amarakaeri Commune Reserve and asked to be included as
communities as the process advanced.

6
As various communities were considering working tourism-based initiatives, it was
decided to elaborate a proposal along these lines that would cut across the
community context; a concept of multi-community and multi-ethnic ecotourism
based on resources from the whole traditional territory and with an important
objective: achieve territorial integration based on the recognition of the Communal
Reserve. In this sense, lobbying in favour of creating the Reserve became the key
point of the strategy while the economic argument based on ecotourism a pillar of
the argument, given its coincidence with government’s plan for developing tourism
and being capable of creating sources of foreign exchange earnings, so important
to national economy5.

It was clear from the beginning that the political objective should be based on
economic success. And the success and continuity of ecotourism depended on the
profits produced by the collective at household, community and territorial level.
Therefore, an equitable gain-sharing model was designed based on rotating
participation6 at community level and 100% indigenous management at all levels –
from tourist guides up to the coordinator of a multi-community enterprise,
Wanamei, with its own administration, marketing and sales offices. In connection
with the model, the greatest challenge was the need to establish an office in
Cusco, a whole day away from the territory. The office in Cusco was considered
essential, as international communication is accessible from this city and a large
flow of tourists is constantly looking for travel opportunities. The goal was to control
the whole commercialisation chain without intermediaries in order to ensure
increased economic profits on one side and, on the other, provide the tourists with
accurate and true information on the unique services based on ancestral customs
that a multi-community and environmentally focused company like Wanamei - of
indigenous roots - had to offer.

In total disadvantage with respect to hundreds of tourist agencies and rain forest
tour operators functioning with deluxe hotel accommodations and university
graduates as guides, it was decided to make optimal use of endogenous resources
and develop the initiative on the basis of comparative advantages, moving away
from the usual concepts. “Wanamei” sales advertisements read as follows:

“It is important to understand that our trips are significantly different to those normally
offered to the rain forest in Madre de Dios, be it the Manu National Park or the Tambopata
National Reserve. It is about expeditions and trips on wooden balsa rafts or canoes, and
3-7 day treks along hunting trails. On the way, we sleep in tents or traditional shelters built
of easily renewable natural materials. The rivers are so clean that it is perfectly safe to
drink the water without any treatment, bathe and fish in crystalline water. We, the

5
Details of this process are documented on the publication entitled “Ecoturismo en la Amazonía” [Ecotourism in the Amazon]
– A guide to assess the feasibility of developing ecotourism in indigenous lands, Claus Kjaerby, 2002. The guide uses as a
main reference the case of “Multi-commune Wanamei Company”, related to Amarakaeri Commune Reserve management. In
2001, Wanamei received the ToDo award for being the world’s most socially responsible tourism company.
6
Inland waterway transport and tourist guide services were contracted in rotating form among all interested community
residents. Initially, tourist guides were usually men; then, women demanded to participate. Finally, a group of guides was
formed with one person who knew the circuit and was an experienced tourist guide, one woman, one elderly person to
transfer his/her knowledge, and the last member was a young man aspiring to become a tourist guide, and his participation
was compulsory.

7
 indigenous peoples, are the guides, the specialists in the area, as we have lived here for
many centuries. We have chosen this form of tourism as it fits to our traditional
knowledge.”

The services offered became thus trips based on routes strategically designed to
cover naturally and culturally attractive places as well as environmentally
threatened locations, allowing guides to act as forest rangers directly financed by
tourism and tourists to become the animators of campaigns promoting the
Reserve.

By the end of the Twentieth Century, very few Harakmbut knew first-hand the
nucleus of the ancestral territory - abandoned 50 years ago. Only those born in
the territory were able to locate historical and sacred sites or trails interconnecting
ancestral settlements. Therefore, prior to protecting and promoting the area, it was
necessary to explore it and recover the cultural patrimony through inter-
generational knowledge transmission. Elderly persons provided distance guidance
to young generations as they explored the territory. On their part, youths have
started to perceive the value of ancestral management practices and techniques
used in hunting, fishing, natural medicine (a pillar of the Machiguenga culture), and
mythology. Young men and women wearing jeans and dancing to hip hop music
observed how tourists (a truly special segment) were impressed by their parents’
or grandparents’ knowledge and capacities

Graphic 1: Circuits of Wanamei Expeditions

8
From the onset, ecotourism functioned as the animator and promoter of community
participation in a collective advocacy process favouring the reconfiguration of the
territory. There was an economic incentive; there was a culture learning incentive;
there was a political incentive. The territorial notion, based on a set of titled multi-
ethnic communities and a protected area (the nucleus) under community
administration and no empty spaces in between, emerged as a new territorial idea
adapted to historical and legal circumstances but thoroughly reflecting the reality.
Under different circumstances, such reconstruction would have emerged only after
an extremely long and uninteresting process.

At that time, there was not a clear idea on what the administrative model for the
communal reserves would be in the absence of regulations for protected areas in
Peru. The World Bank intended to fund a millionaire project with the central
government on the co-management of protected areas. Initially, the Harakmbut
Committee mentioned the absence of regulations and proposed ideas to fill in the
gap. Consequently, the World Bank informed the State that funding was contingent
on the elaboration of regulations for protected natural areas to be agreed on by
consensus with the indigenous people7.

On a parallel with negotiations with official entity in charge of Protected Areas

(Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales, INRENA) concerning issues relating to
the administration and management of Communal Reserves, the Committee,
FENAMAD and COHARYIMA submitted petitions to other government institutions
against mining, lumber and oil concessions granted in the territory. Financial
success of tourism made it clear to young men and women that their territory was a
highly valuable asset. On the other hand, the State lacked arguments to justify the
type of economic exploitation obviously damaging ecology and the indigenous
proposal.

In 2000, indigenous movement in Madre de Dios confronted regional authorities for

the first time in history with protest marches, strikes and the seizure of government
facilities to demand annulment of destructive mega projects in the department, and
the actions that were finally agreed upon were as follows:
 Establish a Technical Commission to elaborate a document-proposal assigning
a definitive category to the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve, based on technical
study conducted by FENAMAD and approved by INRENA.
 Appoint indigenous peoples from the surrounding area as administrators of the
Amarakaeri Communal Reserve in co-management with a corresponding public
authority.
 When zoning the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve, it must follow traditional
indigenous use and management customs of the territory and its resources.

7
It was difficult to reach consensus. Initially, negotiations culminated in the elaboration of regulations that explicitly excluded
the administration regime for Commune Reserves while article 10 of these regulations indicated that a special regime for this
category of protected areas in particular should be agreed on in the future.

9
 Establish procedures with the representative indigenous organisations in order
to establish an indigenous surveillance system for the Amarakaeri Communal
Reserve, prior training agreed on between the parties.

The idea was to present to the State the mechanisms already applied by the
Committee, FENAMAD and COHARYIMA and obtain official acknowledgement to
this.

In December 2001, the Committee sends a strategic message to all (now) eight
communities involved and to the national government as well, by establishing of
the multi-community enterprise “Wanamei Ltd.” with the following objectives:
1) Finance indigenous management of Amarakaeri Communal Reserve with 30%
of Wanamei profits.
2) Destine 70% of Wanamei profits to a fund established for the development of all
8 communities involved.
3) Create jobs for all neighbouring communities directly involved in tourism
activities (150 tourist guides) and indirectly through the production of inputs to
the initiative.
4) The special ecotourism system designed by the communities must be
perceived as an alternative economy that contributes to reduce pressure on
natural resources and provides support to the conservation of the RCA.
5) Given that a large number of tourists are foreigners, Wanamei and the
indigenous populations generate foreign exchange earnings to Peru on a
parallel with any other export company (lumber and mining – which are non-
sustainable on account of their practices).

Given that multiple mining concessions had been granted on a section of the
Reserve, it was agreed to discard a small area and in turn establish a wide buffer
zone to prevent future expansion of these activities. Based on foregoing mutual
commitments, the Supreme Decree was signed on May 11, 2002, finally
establishing the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve with an extension of 402.335,62
hectares. The next step was then to influence on INRENA to accept the Committee
as the Reserve’s administrative entity; in other words, that the institutional frame
created in the autonomic process be recognised through rational adjustment of
regulations in force. INRENA’s response was that the settlers should participate,
that the State lacked funds for the surveillance of the area, and that it could not
advance in the proposed direction in the absence of a special management regime
for Communal Reserves. However, the possibility of hiring a deputy chief for the
area until the special regime was recognised in order to facilitate surveillance of the
Reserve by indigenous rangers.

In 2003, elaboration of the special regime for the administration-management of

Communal Reserves was undertaken in a participatory manner, after a two-year
delay. At the same time, the Hunt Oil company decided to withdraw from its

10
negotiations on oil concession “block78” overlapping the Reserve8. Two years
thereinafter, based on the special regime, neighbouring Harakmbut indigenous
communities finally obtained official recognition as Managing Entity of the
Administration Contract of the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve (ECA-RCA) with
financial assistance from the Global Environment Fund (GEF)9, negotiated by the
Committee and FENAMAD.

TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE OF THE RAMA PEOPLE

History and configuration of the Rama10 territory

In contrast to the Harakmbut case, configuration of the traditional Rama territory in
the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua has not only been influenced by external interests
over the last few decades. England, the pirates of any nation, Spain and the United
States have intermittently influenced on the history of the Rama territory for over five
centuries.

Rama people’s language pertains to the chibcha linguistic family, known as

talamanca, melchora, corobicí, voto, suerre, huetar and guatuso, initially spoken in
Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Identification of the Rama language as a linguistic
chibcha-vótico sub-group clearly suggests the Panama-Costa Rica region as the
place of origin of Rama people, whose migration up north began approximately
3,000 years ago. They are now the remainder of a process of integration of diverse
populations pertaining to the Chibcha cultural and linguistic tradition, some of them
already extinct.

The most outstanding disruptive factor since the period of the conquest in the
Sixteenth Century (Riverstone 2004: 42) was the establishing of the San Juan
8
As a corollary of State aggressive policy on the exploitation of mining and oil resources in the Peruvian Amazon, the
Ministry of Energy and Mines subscribed in 2009 a concession for exploration of former plot 78 with the same oil company
Hunt Oil.
9
For reflection: in 1999, UNDP, acting as GEF focal point in Peru, asked the RCA Committee to develop and present a
project proposal on the process herein presented to be implemented with US$ 1 million. To design the proposal, various
consultations and encounters were developed for a period of three months in what is most likely one of the most participatory
processes developed with indigenous peoples in the history of the GEF. It contributed to accelerate strategic planning for the
following years. However, when I withdrew from the process in January 2004 - five years later - the proposal had not yet
been implemented owing to persistent changes in the mechanisms of UNDP/GEF system, i.e. formats, temporary
consultants’ opinions, and UNDP (ir)responsible personnel. When the project finally kicked off, the bulk of the objectives had
already been accomplished and UNDP began to modify the implementation strategy as they liked, hiring external personnel
and disregarding the terms of reference initially elaborated, whereby the high degree of indigenous inclusion among project
personnel and project control by the same beneficiary indigenous population were neglected. Seven years following my
departure, one of the Harakmbut leaders sent me the following message: “The dream of the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve
continues to pose a challenge to some of us but there are no people in the project to encourage the fight against reserve
intruders. Nothing happened in one and a half years, and neither is the organisational issue on the agenda.” As the project
closed three years later, the Wanamei initiative had been assimilated in hundreds of commercial touristic initiatives in the
Peruvian rain forest, and no tourists were forthcoming. In 2009, I got a call from the former indigenous coordinator of
Wanamei, now President of the Managing Entity of the Contract for Administration of the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve,
who proposed re-launching the original Wanamei idea.
10
Aside from my own work experiences as adviser to Rama and Kriol Territorial Government (GTR-K) between 2004 and
2010, this paragraph is based on historic-anthropological research conducted by Frederica Barclay de Rey with collaboration
from Rama people proper and integrated Afro descendant communities and published in GTR-K Territorial Diagnosis,
presented before the Intersectoral Title and Demarcation Commission from the South Atlantic Autonomous Region (CIDT-
RAAS on December 6, 2007, as a first step towards securing the title and demarcation of the territory.

11
River as a transit route between the Pacific Coast, Granada and the Caribbean,
cutting across Lake Nicaragua in the central mountainous area. The settling
pattern of chibcha-speaking indigenous people in the region was immediately
affected on account of successive epidemic outbreaks in addition to confrontation
and displacement.

Graphic 2: Comparative map of ancestral (green) and traditional (orange) Rama territory

Having identified the importance of this commercial route, the English began to
fight with the Spaniards over control of the San Juan River basin (the current
border between Costa Rica and Nicaragua). The violence of the process reached
such a level that some Chibcha sub-groups disappeared already in the XVI
Century and others were assimilated in groups of the Voto people who had settled
in that basin.

In the process, the Rama local groups sought safe places to isolate themselves
from the conquerors. To date, diverse refuges and caves inhabited in that period
are associated with at least three large cemeteries and one “temple” with abundant
ceramic pieces11.

11
Field work; group interviews, Bluefields 2006.

12
The dispute between Spain and Great Britain over control of the San Juan River
lasted for many centuries and forced some indigenous populations to either seek
allegiance with one group or another or abandon the riverside.

In 1709, some nine small Rama settlements existed in the San Juan River area.
Their chiefs visited Spanish authorities in San Juan del Norte and Granada
requesting authorisation to remain in their lands, which were under frequent attack
by Spanish settlers. Many others must have been hired in farms or worked in
transportation activities requiring a large number of workers while some were
transferred to the shores of Lake Nicaragua. In the XVIII Century, approximately
200 Rama continued to live in the banks of San Juan River tributaries, and it was
obvious that they “were part of the great Rama tribe, whose dominion reached the
Punta Gorda River”12.

All of the above indicates that sustained

pressure exerted by merchants, farm owners
and authorities with interests in the section
currently corresponding to the Southern
Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua generated
important changes in the Rama demography of
this region and in their occupation patterns as
well, often forcing them to take refuge inland
and towards the north, where they met with
Sumu speaking subgroups known as Kukra in
late XVIII Century. The remaining population
was mainly displaced towards Laguna de
Perlas.

As they moved north, diverse Rama

settlements were subject to epidemic
outbreaks13 , which reduced the population
demographically and weakened the people’s
confidence on their own cultural resources to
confront new diseases experienced in the aftermath of contacts with external
populations.

In trying to get away from these contacts, it is assumed that Rama began to settle
in what today is these peoples’ historical head quarters and stronghold, the small
island Rama Cay in Laguna de Bluefields. Oral tradition gathered in Rama Cay
indicates that the mosquito King granted Hannibal, a warrior, the right to settle on

12
Incer Barquero, J. & E. Pérez Valle: 43. 1999. Discovery and exploration of River San Juan. Managua: HISPAMER.
13
Morava Church Catalogues show evidence of the particular severity of cholera (1901, 1904 and 1907), measles
(1902,1925 ,1940) and yellow fever pandemic. Infant and senior adults mortality caused by dysentery rose to extremely high
levels in some years. The collective memory of Rama Cay inhabitants remembers that sometimes (1920 and 1940) children
did not reach two years of age. Although these records refer in principle to Rama
Graphic 3:Kay population, epidemic
Ethnographic Map breakouts
of the
affected the ancestral territory as a whole.
Rama and Kriol territory
13
that key to compensate him for his support to war expeditions in the south.
Although Hannibal was apparently Miskitu, one of his wives was Rama.

The Morava Church also settled in the island. Initially, the first missioners met with
resistance from some Rama families, who later on accepted them on account of
their support and protection to the Kingdom of La Mosquitia, whose king paid
annual visits to the island in order to collect taxes.

The presence of the Morava Church facilitated trade to the Rama, who obtained
better terms from Bluefields merchants. Laguna Bluefields resources and access to
trade contributed to Rama Cay‘s privileged position, and the island became a
reference point as the centre where Rama established political and commercial
relationships. Its population, however, continued to use resources from the rest of
the territory for diverse purposes and maintained a continuous coming and going
among settlements, which is the case as to this day. In the past, the Rama Cay
population developed farming activities on the lake shore and continues to do so.
They also travel inland by boat to fish and hunt, and take advantage of rain forest
resources according to the season. While the central residence of many families is
in Rama Cay, they have secondary houses and crops in these other localities as
well. The situation works the other way for other families, who live on river banks
inland and pay sporadic visits to Rama Cay to participate in the calendar of
festivities established by the Moravians. These occasions are used to hold
baptisms and weddings, and provide opportunities for Rama social life. For those
travelling to Bluefields from the south, Rama Cay is an almost mandatory port of
call. Today, Rama Cay is not only the political seat of Rama people or the centre
with the best educational services; it is also home to one half of the total Rama
population.

Up north, the Kukra River

running near Rama Cay
plays an important role in
oral tradition and
mythology. Its sources are
identified not only as the
traditional source of wild
cocoa (the drink of turmala
spirits) and particular
varieties of banana and
cassava, but also as the
home of such spirits as
Kulmon and Karkauilin
Sulaik ba, small men who
live on the riverside, eat
crab and protect people.
According to this tradition,
the upper Kukra River is
also home to animals that
14
Ilustración 4: Mapa con títulos de propiedad Rama otorgados hasta 2009
(todos en el norte del territorio tradicional). Fuente: Los títulos mismos.
look like stone ‘metates’ while contributing to delimitate the ancestral Rama
Territory14.

Rama settlements in the north were more visible at the end of the Nineteenth
Century and beyond when the administration of the region was in charge of
authorities appointed in Managua. Rama settlements continued to exist on the
banks of the rivers Indio and Maíz. However, both met with considerable difficulty
in having their legal rights recognised when Nicaragua agreed to establish a titling
commission responsible for indigenous land legalisation, as agreed with Great
Britain (1905). Ownership titles were granted to Rama people in the years
comprised between 1915 and 1929 under the Harrison Altamirano Agreement but
ratification of some of these titles was delayed until 1975. As in the Harakmbut
case, these titles failed to meet the needs of Rama people and neither reflected
territorial occupation at the time. Their granting was the result of local leaders’
independent negotiations, as they were notified of the opportunity and pressured
by threats on the livelihood of community members and their families in the
aftermath of aggressive external occupation.

As in the Amazon case, huge migration to the Nicaraguan Caribbean rain forests
began in the past century, as a result of foreign economic interests on rubber and
gum extraction and the establishment of banana plantations. Sustained by their
experiences and history, the Rama abandoned their settlements for fear of
epidemic outbreaks and abuse, going to other places and towards Rama Cay.

Despite a forced annexation from the British Protectorate of the former Mosquitia to
the State of Nicaragua through the Harrison-Altamirano Treaty subscribed already
in 1905, national programmes on agricultural development, cattle and colonisation
of the Caribbean Coast were only promoted from the Sixties onwards. The
populations’ deployment from the Pacific, as a result of volcanic eruptions,
draughts and the 1972 earthquake, accelerated deforestation in the north-western
part of Rama territory, specifically by the head waters of the Kukra and Punta
Gorda rivers. This process, known as “agricultural border expansion” promoted a
drastic and accelerated depredation of the ecosystems, in charge of peasants, who
knew fertile volcanic land very well but were deceived by the overvalued fertility of
lands with plenty of vegetation and abundant water. As a corollary of the
dismantling of the natural resources basis and given the pacific nature of their
culture, the Rama population was increasingly pushed towards the Caribbean
Coast and concentrated in Rama Cay, once again seeking refuse against new
social conflict.

Armed conflict between the Sandinista Army and “counter revolutionaries”, backed
by the United States in the Eighties, momentarily interrupted attempts at
colonisation and pushed the population to abandon the zone, at least temporarily.

14
CIDCA. 1993. Ethnographic Notes on the Rama Indians of Nicaragua, Vol. 2.

15
In many cases, the Rama in the south took refuge in their ancestral land in Costa
Rica.

When the Rama from Indio River returned to their territory after a regional
autonomic regime had been established in 1987, new local government institutions
made up the discourse that no indigenous territory had existed there, “the Indians
first established here in the Nineties”. In this decade, the liberal government
favoured instead the return of former mestizo combatants and by granting them
titles through the agrarian reform in the northern part of the Rama territory. Under
arguments based on the world’s conservation discourse, four protected areas were
further established over the whole Rama territory. One of them, the Biological
Reserve Indio Maíz, under strict conservation category, entailed a new obstacle for
the Rama still living in the south. Relocation process in the wake of the armed
conflict and the recovering of traditional livelihood patterns clashed with State-
proposed objectives on intangibility for the Reserve.

Finally, with respect to the ever changing context of this territory, it is appropriate to
mentioned for territorial alliance between the Rama people and the kriol population.
Since nine generations ago, three Afro descendant communities (Monkey Point,
Corn River and Graytown) have been piecemeal incorporated in the Rama territory
and its territorial government structure. They arrived in the territory through
different routes in the middle of the Nineteenth Century and adapted themselves to
Rama lifestyle. They have maintained cultural links with the Creole collective from
the Caribbean Coast but consider themselves a separate ethnic collective of Afro
descendants from the Caribbean Coast, mainly due to their close links with the
land and close historical relationships with Rama people, this being the reason why
they identify themselves as “Kriol” versus “Creole”.

Involvement in the Rama process

At the onset of my relationship with Rama and Kriol peoples in 2004, a total of
1.936 community members were integrated, hereof 1.336 Rama, and one half of
them had their main home in the small island known as Rama Cay. Territorial
pressure was heartfelt at this time. In the words of a Rama Cay leader: “The
mestizo come, prepare the field, stay a while, then sell it and keep on going. They
are reaching the coast now, where else will they go?”15. When I arrived, there was
strong concern over violence and social conflict caused by a new wave of mestizo
settlers in the north, who were fleeing from the law. As a consequence of extremely
virulent aggressions, the community of Wiring Cay was abandoned and its
population headed for Rama Cay, the traditional refuge. But the island was
completely saturated. There was a pressing need to recover territorial control in
order to prevent genocide, and it had been decided to negotiate the recognition of
collective property on the total extension of traditional territory based on a
demarcation and title process, pursuant to “Law on the community property regime
of indigenous peoples and ethnic communities of the autonomous regions of the
15
Field information 2005: Rufino Omeir, Rama Cay.

16
Atlantic Coast and Bocay, Coco, Indio and Maíz rivers”, Law 445, published in
January 2003.

This legal instrument stems from the ruling issued by the Inter American Human
Rights Court in 2001, on a forestry concession granted by the Nicaraguan State in
the Mayangna community ofAwas Tingni in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region
(RAAN). The community won the case and the State was legally bound to enforce
a demarcation and land titling process amongst all indigenous peoples and Afro
descendant communities in the RAAN and RAAS. The process currently in force
comprises the following phases:

1. Application Phase (Presentation of diagnosis either by community or in one

block as territory)
2. Conflict Resolution Phase (concerning overlapping demands presented by
other indigenous/ethnic communities)
3. Measurement and Demarcation Phase
4. Titling Phase
5. Land Title Clearing Phase (Resolution of conflicts related to land tenancy
with third parties alleging to have a right in the titled and demarcated
community or territory)

In 2004, the official titling process was not yet underway but construction of a legal
entity called to be the collective land right holder was already in process, a body
agglutinating seven out of nine communities in the territory at that time. The
territorial statute model for the entity corresponded to that of a non-profit
association and failed to consider that the same Law 445 could present to the
collective subject of the right to the land the opportunity of being the administration
and management body of the titled territory as well16.

This “territorial authority" was gradually institutionalised as the Rama y Kriol

Territorial Government (GTR-K) and the incorporation of the last two Kriol
communities was approved in order to apply for the title of a territory as a block
without fragmentation of internal conflict. The GTR-K became thus the first self-
appointed but publicly recognised territorial government in Nicaragua, inspiring
other peoples to turn their territorial associations in sui-generis governments based
on the opportunities offered by Law 445.

In planning and presenting the diagnosis, the GTR-K decided to elaborate an all
encompassing territorial analysis instead of one that would simply meet the
requirements of the titling process17. The idea was not only to qualify the right to

16
Article 5. Community authorities are administrative and traditional government bodies representing the communities that
elect them according to their customs and traditions. Territorial authorities are administrative bodies of the territorial unit,
which they legally represent.
Article 23. Pursuant to article 5 of the Political Constitution, the State recognises the legal status of indigenous and ethnic
communities without further proceeding. It furthermore recognises their constitutional right to adopt their own forms of
internal government.
17 Requirements from the manual of procedures:

17
the title but also initiate the historical self-government of a territory to be shortly
recognised by the Nicaraguan State for the first time. Rama y Kriol devoted
themselves to identify the causes of the problems plaguing the territory and its
population, whether indigenous, Afro descendant or mestizo.

But neither the titling process - provided for under Law 445 - nor GTR-K autonomic
aspirations coincided with the priorities of the sitting liberal government. In
consequence, the body responsible for regulating the process, Comisión Nacional
de Demarcación y Titulación (CONADETI) [National Commission for Demarcation
and Titling] was politically infiltrated, and compulsory public financing stalled.
Consequently, in 2005, GTR-K applied for financial assistance from the Danish
cooperation18 and elaborated a self-diagnosis supported by a viable alternative
provided for under Law 44519.

The Danish Cooperation had reasons to support this process. At that time, the
Danish State Minister had assumed the commitment with the World Bank to co-
finance construction of a highway to cut across Rama territory, not giving previous
consideration to indigenous right to the territory or the existence of protected areas.
Failure to comply with this requirement forced the Danish Embassy to launch an
investigation on the political, ecological and legal feasibility of the project. GTR-K
intervened to demand clarification of land tenancy in the area to be affected by the
project even before elaboration of the Terms of Reference for the environmental
and social impact assessment study. On the other hand, funds allocated by
DANIDA to CONADETI were never implemented for political reasons. Moreover,
the Programme in Support to the Environment (PASMA-DANIDA) recognised the
unfeasibility of a good administration of protected areas without previously knowing
the size and location of indigenous territories.

Once its territorial authority had been structured, GTR-K launched a long-term
process to reflect on the characteristics of the area of their traditional territory that
would be eligible for titling pursuant to Law 44520, which criteria coincided in the

a. Historical aspects: aimed at establishing the link between the community/communities filing the claim and their Territory;
b. Socioeconomic aspects: aimed at identifying the characteristics of the social, cultural, demographic, economic and
productive structure of the community and the Territory based on the application of a Socioeconomic Characterisation Form;
c. Ethnographic aspects: aimed at identifying the traditional use of the Territory and the common law in place, and
characterising the areas of use of productive economic value and those of historical-cultural value;
d. Legal situation of third parties: aimed at identifying people alien to the community or the Territory who occupy community
land, their legal situation, the area they use, their use of resources and their relationship with the communities, through
Legal and Socioeconomic Survey of third parties;
e. Cartography: aimed at graphically representing diagnostic studies to support identification of the community, its location
and initial territorial demand. The maps to be elaborated on the basis of topographic maps at a scale of 1:50,000 and the
manuals of Instituto Nacional de Estudios Territoriales (INETER) [National Institute of Territorial Studies] are three: Map of
limits, Ethnographic map and Map of conflicts (with third parties and overlapping with other territorial claims).
18
Via Programme in Support to Environmental Sector (PASMA)
19
Article 50. Communities may conduct studies mentioned in the previous article at their own expense, according to legal
and technical specifications ensuing from this Law. Such studies must be approved by corresponding Intersectoral
Commission for Demarcation and Titling (CIDT).
20
The concept of territory pursuant to Law 445:

18
most part with the logic of Convention 169, although it had not yet been ratified in
Nicaragua21. After two years and multiple territorial assemblies, it was concluded
that:

1st. In order to envisage the interethnic alliance and symbolically strengthen the
Kriol in the territorial fight, the territorial government should be named
“Rama and Kriol”, and
2nd. The geographical space to be claimed would be defined on the basis of the
following criteria:

a) Ecological. As far as possible, use natural features to delimit the territory,

such as rivers and mountain ranges (basin dividers22) in correlation with
traditional basin management.
b) Control. Claiming the totality of the ancestral territory was neither logical
(owing to its extension) nor useful (as some areas were totally deteriorated
and densely occupied by mestizo settlers, preventing thus effective territorial
control; therefore, Punta Gorda river sources were excluded from the
territorial claim).
c) Socioeconomic. Maintaining a productive basis to secure a traditional
subsistence economy demands universal access to the whole diversity of
natural resources incorporated in cultural practices, which can only be
ensured in a divers and extended territory free of exclusive or excluding
internal borders: that is, titling of the comprehensive territory as a block was
the most suitable decision. Some resources, such as, shrimp and oysters
(fishing) in the northern Laguna de Bluefields are not only an important part
of the household diet but also among the most important cash income
generating resources. The southern area of the territory is the basic
reservoir of hunting and rainforest resources. Titling in one block would
allow equitable access of the whole population to important resources and
common income generating sources. This was an extremely important point
of departure, as it was essential to have common economic potential to
allow for self-financing when projecting towards sustainable administration
of the territory.
d) Cultural. Ethnographic mapping produced significant inputs and
underscored economic aspects of interest but, above all, uncovered cultural,
historic-archaeological and mythological dimensions which are key to the
planning and mental organisation of the territory. Only the people can reveal

Commune Land: This is the geographical area in possession of an indigenous or ethnic community, whether under
ownership title to real property or without it. It consists of land inhabited by the community and that which constitutes the
traditional context of their social, economic and cultural activities, as well as sacred places, woodland areas for flora and
fauna reproduction, watercraft construction and subsistence activities, including hunting, fishing and agriculture.
Indigenous Territory: It is the geographical space covering the total habitat of a group of indigenous or ethnic communities
that comprise a territorial unit where they develop according to their customs and traditions.
21
Recently ratified on May 6, 2010.
22
The jurisdiction of Law 445 has taken into account this concept in contemplating not only the RAAN and the RAAS as a
jurisdiction but also the river basins of Indio, Maíz (both rivers in Rama territory) Boca y and Coco, which surprisingly
enhances the jurisdiction towards the Pacific side with Jinotega, Nueva Segovia and Madriz departments and parts of Estelí
and San Juan de Nicaragua.

19
 these criteria, which in many cases are intangible and confusing dimensions
to aliens. For instance, the territory is internally demarcated as a result of
burying infants’ umbilical cords in well defined places where a tree is planted
on the top of it in order to fructify23; there are mythological tunnels through
the territory, where Rama ‘shamanes’ travel in the form of tigers, and these
tunnels allow for their long and quick displacement through well marked and
geographically located routes.
e) Legal. The same Law 445, in addition to recognising the right to commune
and comprehensive property24, considers the possibility of titling the right to
exclusive usufruct of traditional fishing waters up to 3 nautical miles off the
coast and 25 miles around the keys. This element is of foremost importance
to Rama people, considering that their culture has become strongly
dependent on fishing in semi-salty waters – as those of Laguna Bluefields -
and in the sea itself, as they have throughout their history gradually taken
refuge in places closer to the coast.

Upon definition of the claim (see orange boundary on Graphic no. 1), a digital
mapping methodology was used based on over-flights, analysis of documents and
government strategies, 1500 polls organised by Rama and Kriol community
members themselves, and exchanges made with other territorial authorities. GTR-
K intended to analyse the health situation of the territory per se. The findings
revealed that for 2005-2006:
 Approximately 2.800 mestizo families (or 15.000 people) were living in the
territory being claimed, hereof 55% for less than 10 years, while only 15%
could show papers justifying their presence - most papers had legal flaws.
The majority of them had relocated to other locations within the territory
(after selling small “improved” land plots to landowners) and arrived after the
enactment of regulations for protected areas, authorising only settlements
and titling in favour of indigenous peoples and Afro descendant communities
in protected areas of the Atlantic Coast. Everything pointed to basically
illegal practices in the colonisation process.
 Recent colonisation had taken place exclusively in the northern part of the
territory, corresponding to Punta Gorda and Cerro Silva Natural Reserves
while the boundary with Indio-Maíz Biological Reserve towards the south
marked a well-defined strict conservation limit (See red line en graphic 5
and 6).
 National and international infrastructure megaprojects under negotiation with
national government (African palm plantations, deep water port, oil pipeline,
inter-regional highway and inter-oceanic channel) were intended to be

23
Field work Federica Barclay, 2006: interview with Miguel Ruiz.
24
Commune Property (Law 445): This is the collective property consisting of land, water, woodlands and other natural
resources therein contained, which have traditionally belonged to the community, traditional knowledge, intellectual and
cultural property, biodiversity resources and other assets, rights and actions pertaining to one or more indigenous or ethnic
communities.

20
 developed on the same northern areas of the territory affected by
colonisation and deforestation.
During electoral campaigns, national, regional and municipal delegates from the
two largest political factions in the country had offered to issue ID’s and made
illegal promises on delivery of individual ownership titles to mestizo population in
the territory. The GTR-K envisaged two highly complex problems:

1. A public policy that promoted - or in the best of cases was blind to –

colonisation and deforestation of the northern part of the territory in order to
generate a space free of biodiversity and indigenous peoples that would
allow for arguing that implementation of intended megaprojects would not
have major or negative environmental and socio-cultural impacts.
2. Political parties’ electoral strategies encouraging immigration to the territory
by issuing irregular IDs to increasingly growing numbers of mestizo
population, which is eight times the size of Rama and Kriol in their territory.
In fact, mestizo population already exceeded the total population of ethnic
groups across the entire Southern Autonomous Region benefitting from
Regional Autonomy, which implies marginalisation of indigenous peoples
from regional and municipal political spaces.

25
Graphic 5: Map of deforestation and protected areas in Rama and Kriol territory

25
Two dotted circles appear on the map of deforestation. These correspond to the location of the rama communities of Sumu
Kaat and Tiktik Kaanu. Woodland coverage here is more expanded as compared to that on land occupied by mestizos –
surrounding the circles – allowing for visualizing differentiated management patterns according to ethnic group.

21
Graphic 6: Map of megaprojects and protected areas in Rama and Kriol territory

Considering that the main promoters of these processes were not actually the
peasants per se but rather speculating land owners and politicians seeking
economic gains (and ignoring assumed strategies on poverty reduction in the
Pacific itself), GTR-K put together a strategy oriented to self-government
containing five central points: continue to strengthen GTR-K structure; accelerate
the title and demarcation of their full traditional territory; build alliances with
authorities of protected areas to ensure territorial control; solve conflicts with
mestizos and define a future development and administration plan of their territory.

Territory Title and Demarcation under Law 445

In order to legally consolidate their territory, they advanced in the title and
demarcation process pursuant to Law 445. During the phase of self-diagnosis,
GTR-K placed special emphasis on securing management of the process, taking
part in all technical decisions based on adequate information, carrying forward
coordination with their community authorities and providing them with adequate
information, and developing relationships of coordination with public entities and
allied institutions. Having foreseen political constraints based on technical
arguments, they were extremely careful in elaborating the diagnosis, which quality
exceeded what CIDT was used to see. It was submitted in December 2007, but
CIDT did not rule in favour until May 2009, after a large list of observations (mainly
unsupported) had been presented, all of which were duly acknowledged and
remedied. Strangely enough, GTR-K was notified five months thereafter with the
statement that there was no conflict to solve with neighbouring claims. And thus
was the third phase of the process (demarcation and measurement) officially
opened.

Notwithstanding the foregoing and fully aware of some overlapping with the land
sought claimed by the Creoles from Bluefields, GTR-K continued to negotiate with
them. Two months later, they subscribed a common boundary act establishing the
shared use of Laguna Bluefields - quite a commitment as this place is the main
source of fishing to most Rama population.

After the application-diagnosis phase had concluded, land demarcation followed

under the responsibility of Instituto Nacional de Estudios Territoriales (INETER). At
the southernmost part, territorial demarcation was undertaken outside the
geographical space claimed by the GTR-K, as INETER technical staff refused to
enter wetlands and marshes where the border stones were supposed to go. No
posts were set to the southwest, as INETER claimed that natural sites (a mountain
range) serve to demarcate the territory in a natural way. At the northeast, posts
were set so far apart that sources of various secondary basins fell outside the
boundary outlined on the map and were not considered in the border description
memoir, contradicting therefore the Rama-Kriol claim and against INTER’s own
argument on use of natural features for demarcation.

22
This type of accelerated behaviour – highly irresponsible actually - should be seen
as the output of three circumstances. The National Government of Frente
Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN) had built in the past an alliance with the
political party of the largest Miskitu fraction, YATAMA26 (in the light of national
elections in 2006). The core agreement of this Alliance was the obligating of FSLN
to significantly advance in the titling of indigenous territories. Three years
thereafter, with regional elections at the door, FSLN needed to show some results
in order not to terminate this alliance. The Rama and Kriol territory was hence
included in the package of prioritised territories for two reasons. On December 2,
2008, GTR-K had filed an appeal against the President of the Republic and the
President of CONADETI, demanding reactivation of the titling process opening up
for possible intervention from the Inter American Human Rights system, already
underway. This situation was informed in various human rights reports on
Nicaragua which influenced also on the, international cooperation agencies’ to
assist financially the national government. On its part, in order to disentangle the
process, GTR-K suggested to the National Government (March 3, 2009) the idea
of leaving an area (highly deforested and densely occupied by settlers) on the
north-western part of their territory out of the demarcation process, leaving its titling
until more favourable circumstances would allow it. These processes culminated in
the titling and registration of the Rama and Kriol Territory on December 20, 200927.

Resolution of conflicts with third parties

The above mentioned territorial exclusion - agreed for on a temporary basis –
illiminated the need to examine the legal situation of an important part of the
mestizo population during thefirst phase, but social tensions continued to emerge.

Pushed by external interests and with support from mayors, whose jurisdictions
had been affected by the titling process, and other government authorities, settlers
organised in order to destroy the border posts and threaten indigenous leaders and
technical personnel responsible for the demarcation. Under the promise of
receiving individual land titles - a legally impossible endeavour when land is
affected by the twofold condition of being protected areas and indigenous territory
as well - mestizo “representatives” filed an appeal in December 2009, just before
the date on which the title was granted. Although the appeal lacked legal backing,
it succeeded in officially stopping the titling process.

Under these inappropriate conditions, the State recognised four territorial titles,
including Rama and Kriol Territory. In response, speculators and land dealers
hiding behind mestizos, spurred protests on the streets of Bluefields, which derived
in violent armed conflicts and the burning of houses in two Rama communities.

26
Yabti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asia Takanka. This Miskita organisation was forced to become a political party in order to
participate in elections, a case addressed and resolved by the Inter American Human Rights system.
27
Collective property title on behalf of the 6 Rama communities Rama Cay, Bangkukuk, Wiring Cay, Sumu Kaat, Tiktik
Kaanu, Indian River, in territorial alliance with the 3 Kriol communities: Monkey Point, Graytown and Corn River, comprises
406.849 Ha of land (4.068 km²) between Bluefields and River San Juan. Additional to this property title, the recognition
includes 441.308 maritime Ha. (4.413 Km²), extending up to 3 nautical miles off the coast and 25 nautical miles off keys
andislands, where communities have the exclusive right to use maritime resources for community and small-scale fishing.

23
 In any case, mestizo reaction had been
anticipated since the onset of the process, at
which time territorial assembly had been
encouraged to design a “Policy for Third
Parties”, applied as a sensitising tool among
mestizo settlers without any rights but with the
intention to stay in the territory after tilting. The
policy was developed on the basis of social
results from polls developed by GTR-K with
third parties in 2005, this step being included in
an operative and complementary guideline to
Law 44528. The GTR-K strategy did not
contemplate the expulsion of mestizos
interested in the land only as a means of
subsistence. Contrary, the idea was to offer
alternatives and allow them to stay under
conditions favourable to both parties, depending
on the case. Mestizos neither liked the
document nor being considered “third parties” –
a concept introduced by law – in addition to
Graphic 7: Zonification for land title stating that the offers contemplated in the policy
clearing and coexistence
were far too limited. For two consecutive years,
this instrument was gradually restructured into what is known now as the “Guide to
Social and Economic Coexistence in Rama and Kriol Territory”.

Summing up, it consists in:

a) Organising the territory in three zones according to its socioeconomic, cultural

and environmental importance for Rama and Kriol people. One zone (green) of
high priority, one zone (yellow) for coexistence and environmental recovery,
and one zone (brown) for special attention, which in the end was practically the
part of the territory excluded in the first round of titling.

b) Categorisation of community residents: Qualified community residents (Rama

and Kriol), integrated community residents (old dwellers), community residents
assimilated for family reasons and Third Parties assimilated by contract.

28
Law 445, on treatment of third parties:
Article 35. Property rights and historical occupation of indigenous and ethnic communities shall prevail over titles issued in
favour of third party who has never owned land and intends to occupy it as of 1987.
Article 36. Third party who has an agrarian title in indigenous lands and has occupied and owned the area protected under
this title is fully entitled to continue to own it. Should third party intend to mortgage the property, he shall sell the
improvements to the community.
Article 37. Third party with an agrarian title - showing legal flaws in form and content - in indigenous land shall be
compensated and return the land to affected indigenous communities.
Article 38. Third parties in indigenous land without any title must abandon indigenous land without compensation; however, if
they intend to stay, they must pay a lease fee to the community.

24
c) Alliances are sought with old dwellers living in harmony with the Rama and Kriol
and the environment for many years but lacking a title or effective right;
favourable conditions are offered as long as they are committed to defending
the territory.

d) The bulk of mestizos of recent arrival in yellow and brown zones are offered a
lease contract/coexistence title, which grants the usufruct of a well defined and
non extensible land plot. It is a right legally based on a sui generis contract valid
under Nicaraguan civil law and in line with an appropriate interpretation of Law
445.

The Guide to Coexistence is under analysis by other territorial governments,

national government and, especially, national and regional institutions related with
protected areas in order to assess its feasibility as a suitable instrument not only to
resolve similar conflicts in all indigenous territories of the Caribbean Coast but also
to be used as a guide that could have an important role in the last phase of the
process of demarcation and titling with relation to land title clearing, foreseen as
the most conflictive phase.

GTR-K, as legitimate owner of the land and resources, may legally offer and issue
Coexistence Titles on behalf of third parties without the authorisation of the Natural
Resources Secretariat of the RAAS (SERENA) and the Ministry of Natural
Resources and the Environment (MARENA). However, taking into account the
overlapping of the territory by protected areas with almost coinciding boundaries
and the need for a strategic alliance with the above-mentioned public institutions
(in order to control immigration and illegal extraction of natural resources), the
GTR-K is seeking back-up from these institutions on the coexistence contracts to
be subscribed with individuals.

Autonomous Plan for Development and Administration of the Rama and Kriol
Territory (PADA)
Amid a social context and complex political climate, GTR-K had anticipated what in
many cases is only recently taken seriously once the title process concluded, that
is, the construction and planning of a future in the medium-long term shared by the
integrated population of its territory. Although Rama and Kriol were the main actors
and beneficiaries in this process, the extensive mestizo population was always
taken in consideration before those to whom GTR-K wanted to demonstrate that
they represented a better governmental alternative to the overlapping
municipalities. Therefore, it was natural to include a polished version of the Guide
to Coexistence in their Autonomous Plan for Development and Administration of
Rama and Kriol Territory (PADA), elaborated during 2008.

This first PADA instrument serves as a guide to what GTR-K considers its own
territorial governance model and includes a set of core aspects to address the
needs of its own intercultural population and those of the public at large under its
territory:
25
a) Vision and mission of GTR-K government
b) Territorial administration and government structures
c) Social and Environmental Emergency Zones
d) Frame model for Justice Administration, Conflict Resolution and customary law
e) Guide to coexistence and land title clearing
f) Joint-management system for protected areas in the territory
g) Procedures for implementation of free, informed and prior consultation
h) Economic, ecological and social zonification and its regulations
i) Economic development strategy with tourism as the corner stone for a larger
group of complementary subsistence activities
j) Infrastructure and minimum services
k) Financing for the administration and development of the territory

Over the last five years and on a parallel with constructive initiatives (Self-
diagnosis, Guide to Coexistence, PADA), GTR-K has demanded consultations
prior to making decisions that could influence on its territory and repeatedly
denounced the violation of its collective rights before diverse institutions (National
Police, SERENA, MARENA, Court of Appeals of Bluefields, Supreme Court of
Justice of Nicaragua, National Council of Administration and Judicial Studies of the
Supreme Court of Justice, Office of the General Prosecutor of the Republic,
Ministry of the Interior, Inter American Human Rights Commission, United Nations
Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples and Amnesty International).

ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL OPTIONS TO THE RIGHT TO SELF-

DETERMINATION
How to understand the two cases presented in terms of the indigenous peoples
right to self-determination, as expressed in the United Nations Declaration of
September 200729?

To indigenous peoples, self-determination could be seen as the port of arrival in a

“process of recovery of their existence as peoples and nations within the group of
other nations and peoples of the world at equal level”30, which in practice presents
a new situation where indigenous peoples or nations as collective political subjects

29
UNDRIP, 2007
Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and
freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters
relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Article 5
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural
institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of
the State.
30
Source: Derechos Indígenas en el Contexto del Derecho Internacional del Siglo XXI, Pedro García Hierro, 2008, Iquitos.

26
are free to establish their own norms, rule themselves and develop in their
traditional territories according to their own customs and priorities.

But indigenous peoples and organisations tend to express themselves through

political options extremely different from those of national citizenry. In some cases,
they do not even assimilated the current democratic systems or, on the contrary,
reduce themselves to participate in the same processes and through the same
political mechanisms as the rest of the citizens use to express their individual
political rights.

In Latin America, these peoples’ political aspirations and initiatives have taken
highly diverse paths in the past 13 years, the span of my experience in the region.
The model below intends to sum up and show in a diagram some of the
alternatives and variables of indigenous peoples’ political participation. The
concept of autonomy applied to the model includes both the right to establish their
own rules/norms and the right to self-government, the latter understood as self-
government based on those rules.

• Other options to self-determination (Independence)

Limitation to the right to self-determination in the UN Declaration
Options to self-determination

• Indigenous autonomy
(political behavior)

• Intercultural autonomy
Usual limit in American Political Constitutions

• Pluriethnic autonomy
• Citizen participation as collectives
• Citizen participation as individuals
Graphic 8: Political options to self-determination and their relationship with Territorial
Governance. Self-elaborated.

Indigenous groups within some indigenous peoples or communities are quite

satisfied with their citizen participation as individuals in political life and base
their participation on individual citizen rights. For instance, some Chorotega sectors
of the centre-north of Nicaragua took over the control of municipal political power
through this strategy. Moreover, various Maya communities are satisfied to
participate in public politics via State established municipal and departmental
mechanisms. The majority of indigenous peoples in Guatemala, Honduras and
Nicaragua have recognised, however, that its indigenous candidates are normally
co-opted by national political parties and, consequently, are incapable of solving its

27
priorities and main issues31. Therefore, a parallel structure of ancestral or
traditional authorities is maintained in many of these cases hoping to exert
influence through their joint efforts.

Observed at a second level are processes that seek to influence on public

administration and decision making not as individuals but as collectives through
citizen participation. Political subjects are no longer individuals but collective
subjects exercising their “sui generis” rights to political participation recognised to
one people or a fraction thereof. For instance, the State is in principle legally bound
to secure prior, free and informed consent on plans, projects and programmes that
may affect indigenous peoples through consultation mechanisms that are culturally
relevant to each people. Moreover, some of the priorities presented by an
indigenous authority to a government authority should be acknowledged and
included in the public budget32. This particular collective right emerges from ILO
Convention 169 and UNO Declaration, being a necessary levelling measure in
securing equal opportunities for indigenous peoples in a discriminatory world, as
well as respect for their identity and cultural characteristics that set them apart from
other members of the society.

Pluriethnic autonomy expresses a level of indigenous or ethnic participation

based on acknowledging public political-administrative systems in regions with
autonomous administrative systems that - even when considering the population’s
indigenous or ethnic nature as the reason for having a special government regime -
raise the question without referring to any concrete people or ethnic group, as
ethnic and political relationships in this case are regulated under the principle of
equality. As example could be the Statute of Autonomy of the Nicaraguan
Caribbean Coast (Law 28 of 1987 with regulations enacted in 2004). This form of
autonomy, however, may not serve to safeguard the historic and culturally
differentiated rights of a certain people. This is the case of the Nicaraguan
Caribbean Coast where mestizos are recognised as an ethnic group similar to
indigenous people and Afro descendant community. Being much more expansive
than the rest of the ethnic and indigenous groups present, they have diluted, both
politically and democratically, indigenous control over their historical territories33.

31
Baseline Study of Intercultural Governance Thematic Programme, July 2010, Ibis in Central America.
32
An example of the Municipal Code of Guatemala (2003):
ARTICLE 65. Consultations to indigenous communities or authorities of the municipality. When the nature of a problem
affects the rights and interests of indigenous communities in the municipality or their own authorities, the Municipal Council
shall carry out consultations at the request of indigenous communities or authorities, including the application of criteria
inherent to the customs and traditions of indigenous communities.
ARTICLE 131. Budget formulation and approval. The municipality shall have and equitably manage its annual budget among
rural and urban, indigenous and non indigenous communities, considering population density, unsatisfied basic needs,
health and education indicators and financial resources availability.
33
Another factor underlying this situation was that autonomic model - together with special autonomic governments -
maintained municipal institutionality as in the rest of the country, to which may be added an electoral process based on
political parties. Moreover, the election of authorities to Autonomous Regional Councils and Governments was not
developed in such a way as to offer indigenous peoples and ethnic groups living in the area the possibility of maintaining
political control, despite justification from the Autonomies that most of them come in continuous migratory flows.

28
Intercultural autonomy is a political option that, while acknowledging the
historical processes of each people-territory, determines a new political-
administrative conception of the national map where indigenous peoples have a
special administrative jurisdiction wherein they identify themselves and apply their
common law. It is a model that seeks to redistribute political power through
differentiated institutionality that prevents exogenous political manipulation and, in
theory, allows indigenous self-government under a culturally balanced system.
“Circunscripciones Territoriales” in Ecuador, Entidades Territoriales in Colombia,
“Comarcas” in Panama and “Autonomías Originarias Campesinas” in Bolivia are
government formulas proposing this type of intercultural autonomy.

Indigenous autonomy is proposed – with relation to above-mentioned model – as

the maximum feasible political expression within that allowed by the right to self-
determination in the Declaration. Through this strategic route, indigenous peoples
– in extreme cases – restrain other populations’ access to their traditional
territories, break away from national political and economic life and could even limit
development levels pursued by national government with the purpose of recovering
their own economy, territoriality and endogenous development as a people-
territory. In these autonomies it is assumed that the function of the State is limited
to defining the global overall framework and relationships between national or local
government and these indigenous autonomous governments should be regulated
through agreements between the parties.

As the model shows, the right to self-determination acknowledged in the United

Nations Declaration cannot be brandished as an argument towards emancipation,
as proclaimed by the Elders Council (Consejo de Ancianos) of the Mosquitia
Communitarian Nation before the State of Nicaragua in 200934.

The model further shows that, in most Latin American cases, national political
constitutions (and lower ranking laws) have developed only modest efforts to
implement self-determination with the relative exception of Bolivia – three years
after adoption of the Declaration. Legislative development is not observed in most
cases despite the States’ obligation to adjust their legal framework to the new
international indigenous rights35. In some unfortunate cases, such as the one in
Peru, the situation of indigenous rights has experienced significant setbacks
ensuing from the signing of the Declaration, and is at risk of further deterioration.
In Bolivia, the Declaration has been incorporated in Bolivian land use planning, and
the new Constitution has opened legally important doors for exploring intercultural
autonomy in practice. In Nicaragua, the Declaration has strengthened and provided

34
Which does not prevent its negotiation through other channels. Rather than on the United Nations Declaration, this
initiative could rest upon historical rights related to the forced annexation of the old Mosquitia, British Protectorate, to the
Republic of Nicaragua by Great Britain, a little over a century ago. These rights could justify a demand for emancipation
(provided the argument is accepted), appealing to the right to self-determination provided for in the Human Rights Pacts of
1966. Article 45 of the United Nations Declaration on indigenous peoples’ rights leaves this option open.
35
UNDRIP, Article 38. The States, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, shall adopt appropriate
measures, including legal measures, to achieve the objectives of the present Declaration. Along the same lines, see Articles
41, 42 and 43.

29
contents to the interpretation of the rights expressed in their political constitution,
and particularly in Law 44536.

The two maximum expressions of self-determination shown on the model as

Intercultural Autonomy and Indigenous Autonomy categories can a specific
strategy be found. It has been continuously developed by some peoples, i.e. the
Harakmbut and Rama – which we have presented in this document. Not trying to
come up with new words but seeking to define with certain clarity the main
dimensions of this strategy, we have named it Territorial Governance.

TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE AND THE RIGHT TO SELF-

DETERMINATION
In spite of its high flexibility and adaptability to any cultural context and national
legal framework, the Territorial Governance model is one of many possible paths
towards effective application of self-determination. Without leaving aside the
consideration that indigenous autonomy and self-government can respond to
diverse conceptual and strategic options, the Territorial Governance model has the
following virtues:

• The logic has been structured and successfully applied to a large number of
practical work experiences with threatened indigenous territories and
peoples. These are both my experiences and those of my colleague Pedro
García Hierro, and we have shared some.
• It encourages peoples with whom we have worked to understand
themselves in political terms; organise on the basis of their own priorities,
solve problems, and develop within options provided by the right to self-
determination at the local level.
• It promotes State reforms towards a new intercultural governance model,
based on reconfiguring political jurisdictions and having respect for the
socio-cultural realities of each people-territory.
• It is a flexible methodological reference that helps to simplify and plan work
strategies from the perspective of the political subject: people.

Territorial Governance, as a simple definition, it may be understood as diverse

forms of self-government (as opposed to being governed by others) of a people in
a determined traditional territory defined by its own population.

Territory, a central concept in the proposal on territorial governance, should be

understood as the traditional, multidimensional and comprehensive habitat where
the life of a people develops (or, in its case, of an intercultural coexisting
population). The term habitat, taken from the field of ecology, expresses the
interrelation between a natural space and a certain people who have developed

36
CP, Nicaragua, Article 5. The State acknowledges the existence of indigenous peoples, who are entitled to the rights,
duties and guarantees stipulated in the Constitution and, especially, those in […] to have their own forms of social
organisation and administration of their local issues, […], and Law 445, Article 5. Ibid. note 15.

30
their cultural practices in order to have a successful life in that space: it contains
the resources necessary to sustain the present and future life of its population if
and when it maintains control of its use under appropriate standards. The
characteristic traditional refers to the present form of occupation and use of a
specific territorial space. Traditional territory so defined may, or may not, coincide
spatially with the ancestral territory, but it is the result of a historical process and
takes into account irreversible changes generated in historical relationships with
other societies. The term ancestral territory refers to a space with relatively stable
cultural, political, social characteristics lasting over many generations and
prevailing at least until contact with European colonisers was established. Some
peoples have preserved their territories and ancestral occupation patterns more
than others. In the Amazon, for instance, some peoples continue to live practically
without any contact as a result of voluntary isolation.

Indigenous territories are multidimensional. The depths of rivers and lagoons or

the sea with its life underwater must be taken into account in addition to
dimensions accounting for its area. The underground and its minerals and
petroleum or the forest cover with its biological diversity (living resources) and the
environment (dead resources) constitute further dimensions to be considered.
There is a dimension that makes sense of all others: cultural resources, whether
tangible or intangible, which are present and put into context all previously
mentioned dimensions, according to specific visions of each people.

Indigenous territory is comprehensive; in other words, a dynamic whole that also

includes time dimensions, the past, the present and the future. The territory thus
conformed with multiple perspectives is also a political jurisdiction. But it is a type
of jurisdiction that, by including all other dimensions, covers many more aspects of
collective life than the habitual jurisdiction defined from the outside the local
population and managed according to external models, outlooks and political
interests.

In some (few) particular cases, municipal boundaries coincide with the area of a
traditional indigenous territory and could, from that institutionality, constitute the
basis of relatively autonomous territorial governance37. The common situation,
however, is that state jurisdictions at the local level or any other political level level
in Latin America partially or totally overlap indigenous territories and that both
entities maintain government competences that come into conflict –while solutions
are not envisaged as a result of regulatory bewilderment in trying to find ways to
reconcile the duplicity.

37
For instance, in those cases where the municipalities have been defined precisely on the basis of those indigenous
territories, as in the case of Indigenous Municipalities in Bolivia.

31
Some situations are particularly conflict-ridden. In Nicaragua, Rama and Kriol
territory overlaps an autonomous Region - with a special government system – and
a Department outside this autonomous region, five municipal districts and four
protected areas, under the
administration of both Central
and Autonomic governments.
Nicaraguan law recognizes
government autonomy in
indigenous territories with a
set of functions that may
crash with those of other
administrations. Even when
thinking that Indigenous
Territory could be the best
jurisdictional level in which to
build interculturality, the
option continues to be
conflict-ridden.

The situation is so complex as

to require consensus reaching
(not yet achieved) between
regional indigenous
authorities and national
government to reform the
Autonomy Statute, implying
reduction of municipal
jurisdictions around the urban
centers and leaving the new
territorial, indigenous and
ethnic authorities as the only
Graphic 8: Map showing overlapping of jurisdictions in
Rama and Kriol territory governments in their
territories.

From this perspective, that is, based on the indigenous concept of territory and
considering this also as a political jurisdiction, Territorial Governance could be
seen as an exercise of self-government with three types of strongly inter-
dependent components that, for want of a better name and to pedagogically
simplify the answer, we may designate as: “Territoriality”, “Inwards oriented
Governance” and “Outward oriented Governance”.

32
 Inwards oriented GOVERNANCE Outwards oriented GOVERNANCE
(Territorial management based on territorial (Collective rights-based political advocacy)
resources)
 Endogenous economic development  Proactive attitude favoring collective rights
processes and sustainable management of
territorial resources  Self defence and negotiations before third
parties, other governments, NGOs,
 Customary law companies, benefitting their territory – people
 Comprehensive planning and  Collective participation in other political
implementation of “territorial services”: spaces through own and/or public institutions
• Territorial/indigenous
education
• Health and hygiene
• Transporte

TERRITORIALITY (Ownership and consolidation)

 Institutionality of territorial authorities (structuring of juridical/political subjects)
 Collective legal security on traditional territory
 Territorial control
 Territory-related self identification
 A vision of the future and development model shared by the population of the territory (a life plan)

Graphic 9: Conceptual and strategic Territorial Governance model. Author: Claus Kjaerby
(based on idea shared with Pedro García Hierro)

Consolidation and ownership of the territory in all its dimensions is perhaps the
underlying force leading to Territorial Governance and upon which it thrives: the
basic component towards the achievement of results expected from the strategy.

With reference to the above mentioned model, we have intended to describe its
many aspects:

Often, the first step in strengthening territoriality is an organisational development

process where pre-existent institutionality is assessed and the most convenient
political subject to conduct the process is identified. This identity may vary
according to each context and situation. At present, indigenous peoples are often
represented towards the outside by an association or federation with a legal status
that depends on State recognition. A subject of this type is in legal disadvantage
when compared to an autonomous indigenous authority or government, as it is
contingent on State powers. Furthermore it is not necessarily the only possible
indigenous representation and runs the risk of experiencing progressive
organisational fragmentation as a result of internal conflict of external manipulation.
Although self-governments was not the buzz word in Madre de Dios 13 years ago,
the aspiration of the Harakmbut was undoubtedly to rule their patrimony as a whole

33
and become the leading entity of their negotiations without State interference. They
elaborated their own guidelines based on community consultations in order to
regulate both internal functioning and the uses of the territory (in this case,
tourism), which entailed benefits and opportunities but also strong limitations for
their own population and outsiders as well. On their part, the Rama took
advantage of a highly favourable legal context to be institutionalized as a sui-
generis government structure, recognised by the Regional Autonomous Council, in
representation of the State, and their own Territorial Assembly, being their
maximum regulatory and legal authority, while always respecting the autonomy of
each of the nine integrated communities.

In the presented cases, the legal frame implied quite different conditions and
opportunities for the legal consolidation of the territory and titling (in its
diverse dimensions). The Harakmbut had to accept community titles and a
contract for administration of the nucleus of their traditional territory, ranked as
Communal Reserve and contingent on regulations for protected areas while the
Rama had the option of titling almost all dimensions of their territory under Law
445. The sea was the only exclusion, as only its exclusive right to carry out
traditional fishing was recognised. On the other hand, it was possible to include
Laguna de Bluefields as their property (shared with the neighbouring Creoles). The
complex aspect of the latter process continues to be multiple authorities with
overlapping competences in the same jurisdictional space, as well as a twofold title
(Territorial Government – individual mestizos), which shall prevail until the long
process on clearing land titles with third parties is over.

Territory control, whether over the course of a titling process or after having
received the deed officialising the property or the contract clarifying administration
right, is even more important than the mere formality of gaining this right. In fact,
only announcing the establishment of the Communal Reserve - in the Harakmbut
case – and titling of Rama and Kriol territory ensued in an alarming boom of
colonisation and illegal extraction of natural resources in both territories. In the
case of the Mayangna nation, invasion accelerated following the titling process, as
an expression of the discontent of mestizos and as the municipal mayors’ last
resource to maintain an authority increasingly questioned in indigenous territories.
Multiple strategies were developed to alleviate the foregoing colonization impacts
in the case studies: alliances with “old dwellers” and offers of coexistence under
sustainable environmental and social standards; own bodies of rangers; intensive
use of “border” zones for settlements or delivery of controllable concessions to
allies; monitoring and surveillance in coordination with authorities of protected
areas or NGOs involved in biodiversity conservation; implementation of economic
activities implying intensive use of the most threatened corners of the territory,
which could have a twofold function in the light of territorial control (tourist
guides=rangers), etc. It is worthwhile establishing the difference between having
control of decisions that may affect the territory and territorial control per se.

In the case of peoples experiencing severe loss of cultural elements or already

assimilated, individual and collective self identification with the territory is
34
required in order to exercise territorial governance and this normally goes through
a process of recovery of the own indigenous identity. Collective exercises on
historical configuration of the territory accompanied by the transfer of knowledge by
old, knowledgeable or wise men to younger generations are often useful as long as
the youth is directly involved. Such was the case with the Harakmbut, who
succeeded in reincorporating young people in the reconstruction of territoriality and
also in getting them interested in their own culture and in the characteristics of the
territory. To the Rama, the intensive diagnostic process with an objective shared
by all, i.e. the titling of land, territories and resources, implied working in ethno-
mapping, rescuing autochthonous names and their meaning, all in combination
with a complementary project on recovery of the Rama language. In both cases,
the process itself contributed to reassessment of collective and differentiated
identity, a bonding and a sense of belonging to already weakened, especially
among young community residents from the front post communities Rama Cay and
Shintuya who are strongly influenced by the values and customs of the
neighbouring cities of Bluefields and Cusco. Considering the existence of
numerous varied cultural aspects38 related to social life, it is not difficult to find
inspiration leading to the use a wide range of methodologies that contribute to
reconstruct or strengthen territorial identity, while the governance process
advances.

Although long-term planning is seldom an activity practiced among indigenous

peoples, the truth is that reflection becomes mandatory and it is convenient to raise
the question: and now what” when contexts have undergone numerous changes.
Building and agreeing on a plan for life or territorial development and
administration that makes sense in the long term is normally a difficult task to carry
out with quality and a sense of usefulness, failing to have advanced first and
significantly in all the other strategic elements mentioned under Territoriality.
Extreme care was exercised in formulating the Autonomous Plan for Development
and Administration of Rama and Kriol territory in a period of six months. Its quality
owed to the fact that “the picture” of the territory they had from the territorial
diagnosis process was still clear, and the accompanying facilitators had a well
defined political structure to assist in the coordination of each phase of the
process. Even so, further elaborating on many aspects is a pending issue. In the
case of the Harakmbut, it was only years after the recognition of their Communal
Reserve that a Master Plan for this area could be agreed on.

The logic of territorial governance tells us that a people doing a good job in
developing the aspects of territoriality herein defined has the best opportunities to
self govern. In other words, when a traditional territory has been officially
recognised as indigenous patrimony and jurisdiction with a legitimate territorial
authority and a population strongly identified with its territory, having in addition
agreed on a plan for the future, the possibilities multiply for the people to be able to
do two things. Firstly, generate territorial services and promote intended

38
Standards, values and rules, structures, ‘cosmovision’, religion, spirituality, relationship with nature, rites, sacred sites,
ceremonies, language, stories and myths, clothing, songs, dances, toponymy, territory, history, etc.

35
development based on the management of their territorial resources and, secondly,
establish good relationships with extra-territorial actors and authorities in political
advocacy processes based on their collective rights. The model hereto suggests
that these two aspects of territorial governance: “Inwards oriented governance” and
“Outwards oriented governance” are sustained on territoriality.

“Inwards oriented Governance” is understood as the set of territorial relationships

and mechanisms necessary to regulate internal issues based on collective and
sustainable use of territorial resources (economic, natural, human and cultural) to
promote the people’s subsistence and self-development. The most usual planning
is oriented to set community justice or customary law in motion, create
commonweal (some people refer to it now as “living well” but food sovereignty,
safe water, etc. should be the main consideration) and provide attention to health
and education sectors, although there might be other territorial priorities of a public
nature in each case (transportation, communications, etc).

To GTR-K, the PADA is the guiding thread of its governance. It attends to the
distribution of physical infrastructure for the education and transportation sectors
with such characteristics and under such a distribution that it makes sense for the
territory at large and for its residents, not for a municipality, political parties or any
single of the most influential communities. In contrast with former controversial
projects to be implemented with World Bank (WB) funds in the territory, the WB is
now considering funding projects, such as, waterway transport, renewable energy
and safe water under GTR-K criteria, although these may not necessarily coincide
with National Government Plan for “development” of the Caribbean Coast and,
least of all, with the interests of international extractive investments. In the
Harakmbut case, had it not been for GEF/UNDP inappropriate support, the multi-
community tourism initiative in the Reserve would not have experienced such a
catastrophic fall after having generated an increasingly growing income for many
years without much external financial assistance. Maintaining this progress would
have allowed for self-financing administrative expenses that its Contract for the
Administration of Amarakaeri Communal Reserve entails, providing increased
autonomy to this initiative.

“Outwards oriented Governance” is understood as processes and mechanisms

of self-defence and proposals that seek to influence on the surrounding context
through negotiations with third parties. Collective participation in public political life
with territorial representativeness on behalf of their territory-people may be
favourably considered. The idea is to generate a collective proactive attitude that
promotes the desired destiny and to exercise collective rights without affecting
negatively individual rights. In this sense, it is important to introduce innovations in
the formulation of initiatives and creatively explore alternative options, as well as
promoting collective responsibility and unity, in order to address the public and
private sector, which are normally conducted based upon a rationale opposing that
of the indigenous freely determined plan for life. A illustrative example of these
opposing worlds are State concessions granted to companies without consultation
or consent; or social assistance plans intended to reduce poverty while generating
36
dependency or humiliating of the population; public or private projects constraining
development of the plan for life or the seeking to confront sectors of one
indigenous people as mechanisms to disrupt the self government structure.

Illustrating the foregoing, the GTR-K Guide to Coexistence is as a mechanism that

requires negotiation with third parties and the State in order to come into force and
promote the social peace pursued by Rama people for many centuries and now
absolutely necessary also to the Kriol, towards ensuring their survival as peoples.

The Rama and the Harakmbut had to lobby in favour of modifications to national
laws on protected areas. Alliances and negotiations before donors and NGOs
proved extremely important to both peoples in these cases not only in channelling
technical and financial support to their processes but also ensuring that
interventions in their territory would not contradict their rights and priorities. In the
most serious cases, the Rama made use of the established legal system to sue
government authorities for administrative violations and assert their right to prior,
free and informed consultation. In practice, however, the system of justice in
Nicaragua is not independent from the other state powers and therefore incapable
of solving interethnic and inter-governmental conflicts. Was it not for international
mechanisms (request for public clarification, urgent actions and precautionary
measures), it would have been extremely difficult to obtain public political
collaboration in order to control social conflict in the territory, accounting in any
case for fatalities among Rama and mestizos.

METHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCES AND FINAL REFLECTIONS

The key to working with and strengthening Territorial Governance processes is to
depart from a concrete problem, a need or interest that is shared by the majority of
the people. It functions like a dynamo in collective participation. The goal is,
nevertheless, not only to solve that problem or that need in particular either in the
short or long term but to design a form of self-government capable of responding to
any present or future opportunity or threat in order to guarantee the life of that
people or that population in its territory. On the other side, it is not always required
to first consolidate Territoriality, as the approach - being comprehensive - entails in
practice a strategic linking between the three components of the model:
Territoriality-Inward oriented Governance - Outwards oriented Governance. . A
problem complex identified in whatever component will always lead to
complementary activities in other components (of the model).

Territorial planning and management processes have a better chance to succeed

when the projecting of the future is based on the historical experiences that have
brought the territory and its population to the current situation. In this sense, it is
highly pragmatic and pedagogical to identify historical moments and facts (with
their causes and consequences) collectively and use them as a guide when
configuring the territory and as a reference for reflection, planning and advocacy.

37
Severe discrimination and racism observed in (multiethnic/ pluricultural) Latin
America and the obvious crisis of (pseudo)democratic and (mono)cultural political
institutions imported from Europe or the United States have fuelled the aspirations
to Territorial Governance as the expression of indigenous self-government.
However, fostering harmonious intercultural coexistence within the territories is not
the only goal. The Territorial Governance Strategy intends to promote redistribution
of political-economic power under more equitable and intercultural conditions. It
seeks a territorial reconfiguration of the States and the construction of a new
political-administrative model - from the bottom up - capable of linking all traditional
territories and peoples on the basis of respect for their idiosyncrasies. In this
sense, it is important to investigate if territorial governance, developed in
indigenous peoples’ contexts, is liable to be applied in mestizo territories and
populations. Indigenous peoples have a comparative advantage owing to its
historical and comprehensive perception of the concept of territory. And, even in
cases where a deeply concerning disruption of traditional indigenous institutions is
identified together with a strong assimilation processes towards mestizo or western
cultures, there continues to exist a highly valid and recoverable basis that favours
and suggests an indigenous Territorial Governance process. On the other hand, it
should be recognized also that mestizo populations have achieved collective and
territorial success in their own sense. Therefore, taking departure in the
observation that indigenous peoples as well as wide civil society sectors in Latin
America feel excluded from spaces where decisions concerning their destiny are
made and widespread marginalisation of many rural sectors is the rule in America,
then it is feasible that territorial governance as a strategy (self-governance) could
introduce a drive for change and become a viable path for change.

38